Group Countingencies: Playing Games to Decrease Disruptive Behavior
First Presenter's Institution
Greene County School System
First Presenter's Brief Biography
Dr. Dan Mangum graduated in December of 2022 with a PhD in special education and am emphasis in applied behavior analysis. His research interests include tiered interventions and preventions for problem behavior in public education settings. He has fourteen years of experience working in public education, all of which have been in Title 1 school districts. He is also a board-certified behavior analyst (BCBA).
Document Type
Event
Primary Strand
Positive Behavior Interventions and Support
Relevance to Primary Strand
PBIS - Strand 3: Develop interventions to be deployed in schools for students who need more intense interventions, including students with disabilities or students considered to be at risk.
Despite a wealth of research dating back to 1969 supporting the use of group contingencies to decrease problem behavior in educational settings, few educators are familiar with them as a class-wide intervention.
Alignment with School Improvement Plan Topics
Climate and Culture
Brief Program Description
Let's play games! Group contingencies provide teachers with a classwide intervention to decrease the off-task and disruptive behaviors of numerous students while also increasing engagement. Come learn about the three types of group contingencies as well as pros, cons and examples of each.
Summary
Effective classroom management is needed more today than ever before. However, most teachers in the field have had little to no instruction in teacher preparation programs regarding evidence-based practices. Group contingencies afford teachers a practical option when needing to intervene on the problem behavior of multiple students. Group contingencies involve the setting of clear criteria and then the contingent access to a reward for those who meet criteria. Despite early evidence that all three types of group contingencies were similarly effective, recent research has noted specific pros and cons of each type. This session will discuss the pros and cons as well as an example of each type of group contingency. Independent group contingencies allow all individual students who meet criteria to access a reward. For example, all students who turn in their completed homework can get a Jolly Rancher. Most student view this as a fair intervention, but it does not promote collaboration among classmates. Dependent group contingencies are sometimes referred to as the "hero game." In this arrangement, one student or a small subset of the larger group must meet criteria for the class to access the reward. For example, if only one student typically engages in problem behavior during hallway transitions, a teacher could use a dependent group contingency in which all students get extra recess time if that student follows the hallway rules. When that student meets criteria, it can help to create a better relationship between he/her and the rest of the class. However, when that student does not meet criteria, it can lead to frustration and retaliation from classmates. The last arrangement, and most well researched arrangement is the interdependent group contingency. In this form, classes are split into small teams. Each time that meets criteria is able to access the reward. The Good Behavior Game or CW-FIT are two examples of interdependent group contingencies. A con of this form is that it can be viewed as unfair when one team member sabotages the rest of the team. However, that team member can then be moved to their own team to minimize the likelihood that he/she continues to sabotage.
Evidence
A wealth of primary research articles and literature reviews have evidenced the utility of group contingencies as a tier 1, class-wide intervention for problem behavior.
Learning Objective 1
Participants will be able to identify each group contingency type.
Learning Objective 2
Participants will be able to identify the pros and cons of each group contingency type.
Learning Objective 3
Participats will be able to identify an example of each group contingency.
Recommended Citation
Mangum, Dan R., "Group Countingencies: Playing Games to Decrease Disruptive Behavior" (2023). Southeast Conference on School Climate. 96.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/secsc/2023/2023/96
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
Group Countingencies: Playing Games to Decrease Disruptive Behavior
Effective classroom management is needed more today than ever before. However, most teachers in the field have had little to no instruction in teacher preparation programs regarding evidence-based practices. Group contingencies afford teachers a practical option when needing to intervene on the problem behavior of multiple students. Group contingencies involve the setting of clear criteria and then the contingent access to a reward for those who meet criteria. Despite early evidence that all three types of group contingencies were similarly effective, recent research has noted specific pros and cons of each type. This session will discuss the pros and cons as well as an example of each type of group contingency. Independent group contingencies allow all individual students who meet criteria to access a reward. For example, all students who turn in their completed homework can get a Jolly Rancher. Most student view this as a fair intervention, but it does not promote collaboration among classmates. Dependent group contingencies are sometimes referred to as the "hero game." In this arrangement, one student or a small subset of the larger group must meet criteria for the class to access the reward. For example, if only one student typically engages in problem behavior during hallway transitions, a teacher could use a dependent group contingency in which all students get extra recess time if that student follows the hallway rules. When that student meets criteria, it can help to create a better relationship between he/her and the rest of the class. However, when that student does not meet criteria, it can lead to frustration and retaliation from classmates. The last arrangement, and most well researched arrangement is the interdependent group contingency. In this form, classes are split into small teams. Each time that meets criteria is able to access the reward. The Good Behavior Game or CW-FIT are two examples of interdependent group contingencies. A con of this form is that it can be viewed as unfair when one team member sabotages the rest of the team. However, that team member can then be moved to their own team to minimize the likelihood that he/she continues to sabotage.
